At breakfast this morning, I read the front page story in the Philippine Daily Inquirer (on-line version here) about Manny Pacquiao’s superb victory over Antonio Margarito in Dallas yesterday. A friend texted to alert me to read both the Inquirer story and The International Herald Tribune, and I immediately had a hunch why I was asked to do so. Sure enough, word for word sentences and paragraphs appear to be taken by the writer of the Inquirer from the article in the IHT, which is taken from the New York Times wire service, its parent company.

But there’s a caveat, at the end of the Inquirer article, it says, and I quote “With reports from The New York Times News Service, AP and AF (sic)”. So the key question is, does one avoid the accusation of plagiarism simply because he blanket cites several sources for the material used in a specific article? In other words, does that reference really suggest “adequate acknowledgment”? In my personal opinion, I would think not. Particularly true if you copy entire paragraphs, sentences and just slightly alter or paraphrase paragraphs, etc., without specific attribution, no?

So I can only describe my morning perusal of the two papers as a pathetic, dissapointing, infuriating read. Ridiculous. Absurd. I was away when the whole brouhaha on the Supreme court plagiarizing some material from an American author, so I didn’t comment on that even more amazing scenario. I WAS here during the MVP speech issue, and wrote about it, here and here. I have covered other examples of the PDI having taken photos without permission from Marketmanila here and here. And I did write about an article on mangosteens in the PDI that appeared to have plagiarized material as well; here, here, here and here. So yes, plagiarism is something that bothers me. And it really seems outrageous when it is repeatedly seen in large circulation national daily newspapers that are in the business of PROFIT MAKING from their newspapers. In this case, on the front page. It smacks of intellectual laziness, a sense of entitlement, sloppy journalism and editing skills, and a belief that readers are all too stupid to notice or to care.

So here are some examples from the article in today’s PDI:

In the Inquirer article, under the byline of the author, I reproduce here and quote his paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7:

“Against his largest opponent yet, Pacquiao did what Pacquiao always does: He (sic) dipped and danced and fired southpaw, he ducked and spun and landed a tornado of combinations. When it ended, Pacquiao had earned his 13th straight victory and the WBC’s vacant 154-pound title. With each round, Margarito’s face worsened, as if Pacquiao was painting a brutal boxing masterpiece. I went like this: seventh round, left eye closed; eighth round, bleeding from nose; ninth round, left cheek bruised; 10th round, fight nearly stopped. In the 11th round, Pacquiao glanced at the referee, almost pleading for a stoppage. In the 12th round, he took mercy, punching rarely, virtually allowing Margarito to finish on his feet.”

In the International Herald Tribune (owned by the New York Times), in an article with the byline by Greg Bishop, I found these four paragraphs, and I quote:

“Against his strongest opponent yet, in his eighth weight division, Pacquiao did Saturday what Pacquiao always does: he dipped and danced and fired his left hand, he ducked and spun and landed a tornado of combinations. When it ended, Pacquiao had earned his 13th straight victory and the World Boxing Council’s vacant 154-pound title, in a bloodbath, by unanimous decision. xxxxxxxxWith each round, Margarito’s face worsened, as if Pacquiao was painting a brutal boxing masterpiece. It went like this: seventh round, left eye closed; eight round, bleeding from the nose; ninth round, left cheek bruised; 10th round, fight nearly stopped.

In the 11th round, Pacquiao glanced at the referee, almost pleading for a stoppage.

In the 12th, he took mercy, punching rarely, allowing Margarito to finish on his feet, after which he was taken to the hospital.”

The words in bold are the ones “copied” or reproduced by the PDI in its article. Now tell me how that DOES NOT require a specific citation by way of footnote, or comment like “The New York Times reports:…..” or direct quotes, period? The writer bothered to change a word or two here and there, and drop parts of a sentence, but otherwise, makes no suggestion that the paragraphs are basically not written by him.

Checking further, the final paragraph of the PDI article likewise takes literally or is it liberally from the New York Times News Service:

The contents of the last 4 paragraphs in the PDI article, on page 22, and I quote:

“Just before the main event, strategic shenanigans erupted in the locker rooms. Garcia, Margarito’s trainer, successfully forced a second wrapping of Pacquiao’s hands. Roach on the other hand, accused Margarito of taking a banned substance — it was unclear exactly what the substance was — and unsuccessfully lobbied for a prefight drug test. The surreal show continued. The singer Nelly performed, as if plucked straight from the half-time show of the Super Bowl that will be staged here in February. Pacquiao bounded into the ring with his grand grin spread wide, as “Your’re the best” blared from the stadium’s ample supply of speakers, before, as is his custom, he knelt and prayed.”

I found three paragraphs in the IHT, in different parts of the article, but all relevant to the paragraphs above, and I quote the relevant parts:

“Before the main event here, strategic shenanigans erupted in the locker rooms. Margarito’s trainer, Robert Garcia, successfully forced a second wrapping of Pacquiao’s hands. Meanwhile, Pacquiao’s trainer, Freddie Roach, accused Margarito of taking a banned substance –breathless debate labeled the substance in question Ephedra, ephedrine, Hydroxycut, or splenda but never produced a definitive answer — and Roach unsuccessfully lobbied for a prefight drug test. The surreal atmosphere continued from there. The singer Nelly performed, as if plucked straight from an N.F.L. Super Bowl halftime show, Pacquiao bounded into the ring with that grand grin spread wide, as “You’re the best” blared from the stadium’s ample supply of speakers, before, as is his custom, he knelt and prayed.”

Now curious just how much was “lifted” from elsewhere without specific attribution, I scoured the net this morning for AP (Associated Press) and AFP (Agence France Presse) wire reports to see if sentences were taken from those as well. YES, they were. And btw, the author writes AF for AFP I presume, which is apparently an incorrect abbreviation.

From the PDI article, 8th and 9th paragraphs, and I quote:

“Pacquiao won every round on one scorecard, 120-108, and was ahead 119-109 and 118-110 on the other two. The Associated Press had it a 120-108 shutout. “We didn’t lose a round,” said Pacquiao’s trainer, Freddie Roach. “I wish they would have stopped the fight.”

From article on the CBS News site on the internet, with clear credit to (AP) or the Associated Press, I found this, and I quote:

“Pacquiao won every round on one scorecard, 120-108, and was ahead 119-109 and 118-110 on the other two. The Associated Press had it a 120-108 shutout. “We didn’t lose a round,” said Pacquiao’s trainer, Freddie Roach. “I wish they would have stopped the fight.”

Word for word, exactly the SAME sentences.

Finally, from the PDI article, on the issue of Mommy Dionesia, I quote:

“Pacquiao had a scare after the fight when he learned his mother, Dionesia, had suffered what officials called an “anxiety attack” during the fight and was taken to a hospital. Pacquiao said at the postfight news conference that she was doing better.”

So let’s go three for three, and I hunted down Agence France Presse (AFP) press releases, and found this under Yahoo News, with a byline by Greg Heakes, and credited to (AFP):

“Pacquiao had a scare after the fight when he learned his mother, Dionesia, had suffered what officials called an “anxiety attack” during the fight and was taken to a hospital. Pacquiao said at the post–fight news conference that she was doing better.”

Word for word, except for one hyphen between the words “post” and “fight” exactly the SAME sentences.

——–

So what’s the big deal?

It’s a big deal to me because plagiarism or forms of it (or is it better to say incredibly shoddy journalism standards instead?) seem to keep on surfacing again and again in the local context. And those who should be most responsible for upholding the rules on plagiarism — journalists, judges, etc. seem to be some of the ones blatantly violating the written and possibly unwritten rules. The author (or editor) of the PDI article obviously knew enough to quote his three sources, but he did not go further to cite direct and LENGTHY quotes of original material. A simple preface like “The NYTimes wrote in its press release said: “xxxx”” would have been much better. But worse, the author (or editor) changed a few words here and there on some sentences, for what reason? Hoping to pass the work off as his own? Guilt at copying so extensively? Ignorance? Laziness? Any reporter worth his salt could have watched the fight in person (judging by byline, he was in Texas at the bout) and written an original article about it. He could have properly quoted post-fight televised interviews, and referred to wire reports properly. And WHERE were the EDITORS in all of this? Wasn’t there anyone at the PDI on Sunday night to check their HEADLINE STORY? I wonder if the Associated Press, New York Times Wire Service and Agence France Presse would be as lenient in their interpretation of press citation and usage if they find out what the PDI was doing with their press releases. Here, some very basic guidelines on how to avoid plagiarism. Here, suggestions how to properly CITE sources, and particularly using quotations for direct replication of published material. Also, if you go back to my previous articles on plagiarism, I link extensively to the Journalist’s Code of Ethics which I presume every journalist should at least know about, particularly journalists from the PDI since the newspaper itself published an article on the Code of Ethics. They also published an editorial on the issue of plagiarism.

So wonderful that Pacquiao won and brings such a positive aura to Filipinos here and abroad. So embarrassing that in the relatively simple task of reporting that great victory, a writer honored with a headline story, to be read by several million people around the world, chooses to reproduce material without what would seem to be sufficient/proper attribution from three foreign news sources.

Shame, shame, shame. :(

I am sending this post to the Reader’s Advocate of the Philippine Daily Inquirer and will post their response, if any.

COMMENTS:

Joey in Dubai
says:

Actually I noticed it, too, when I read the online version of the PDI and I remembered I read the passages in question exactly the same from the NYT website yesterday. So I immediately scrolled down to see from which sources did the PDI article copied the passages and found NYT as one of them. But funny, when I scrolled up again, the PDI article was by-lined by (PDI reporter) so I was kind of confused. Which parts of the article were (the reporter’s) original report in his own words and which were lifted from NYT, AFP and AP wire services? And yes, I think, for this ordinary reader, it’s plagiarism because of the absence of quotation marks and citations in the main body of the article, even if PDI “bolded” their sources at the end of the article. But then, who knows, maybe that practice is allowed in Third World journalism?

Nov 15, 2010 | 1:53 pm

Ellen
says:

One word: Nakakahiya!

Nov 15, 2010 | 2:01 pm

leigh
says:

Extremely disappointing! I am an Inquirer and inquirer.net reader and I hope they will have the good sense to clarify why they allowed this …

Yes, SHAME, shame, shame.
What’s more, you “caught” this plagiarism several times from PDI! To think they are one of the top publications. Calling the Prietos and the editors. Hope you do something about this major, major issue.

Nov 15, 2010 | 2:29 pm

chrisz
says:

Some years ago, PDI fired one of their columnists — a popular one — for plagiarism. Let’s see how the paper will act on this one.

Nov 15, 2010 | 2:35 pm

Reporter
says:

Hi Marketman,

From what I know, some newspapers make use of wire services. They can “rehash” the articles BUT this will depend on the agreement stipulated in the contract. I think the premise is that the newspapers have paid for the content, hence, they can use the articles as they wish. Most press releases from wire services are reproduced verbatim; however, news (such as the Pacquiao fight) are “edited”. I know it is “plagiarism” in the eyes of many readers but considering the time element and the sense of urgency, this is considered “acceptable”, granting that PDI paid for the content. But you are right, the least the writers/editors could do is to cite their sources.

I’m just not sure if PDI entered into an agreement with the International Tribune to reproduce articles, with little or no change.

Nov 15, 2010 | 2:37 pm

Ron
says:

I wouldn’t be quick to judge and say plagiarism instantly. For all we know, there could have already been permission of sorts, as I’ve seen lots of news article to be sourcing internationally.

I agree that the inquirer may have agreements with the three news services, and I am not surprised, they have published FULL articles from AP, NYT and AFP before, but they indicate the article was wholly from those sources. In this case, a “re-hash” as you put it does take clips from here and there. But regardless, they took WHOLE PARAGRAPHS AND HUNDREDS OF THE SAME WORDS, which at the least, require the use of quotation marks.

Nov 15, 2010 | 3:01 pm

iyoy
says:

it’s not considered plagiarism in journalism. there’s a byline at the top (the paper’s own reporter) and a tagline (“The New York Times News Service, AP and AF”). by convention (note: convention), the item is considered “authored” by all those named in the byline and the tagline. hence, there is no attempt to pass off another’s writing as one’s own. also, there is no “theft” of intellectual property as i’m sure inquirer is a paying newspaper-subscriber of the news services, which gives it the right to use the latter’s copyrighted materials. i have not come across nyt news service’s standard contract for newspaper-subscribers so i have no idea if a cut-and-paste use of their materials is allowed. but in the case of AP and AFP (and also Reuters), they are hardly bothered when their reports are stitched together, especially in so-called wrap-up stories. it happens all the time, and not only in the Philippines, when it comes to stories sourced from multiple sources in different locations.

i would also not be surprised if somebody at the inquirer desk, one of those nameless and faceless sub-editors, actually strung the paragraphs together from the reports of the reporter and the news services.

Reporter and Ron, I quote directly from the Inquirer’s Editorial on how to avoid plagiarism:

“To avoid the charge of plagiarism, academicians have adopted three conventions: (1) If you use someone elseâ€™s ideas, you should cite the source; (2) If the way youâ€™re using the source is unclear, make it clear; and (3) If you received help from someone in writing the paper (or report or speech), acknowledge it. Even if one is paraphrasing, one is still using someone elseâ€™s ideas and arguments, and must cite the original work.”

So here they lay it out. You should cite the source, and more importantly, as it applies to the article in the post above, “if the way way you’re using the source is unclear, make it clear.” It is on this second issue that the writer and editor DID NOT MAKE IT CLEAR what sentences they replicate verbatim or almost verbatim, and from whom those specific sentences were taken.

Here’s another angle, on the Associated Press’ own website, they issue a memo to their own staff re: editorial guidelines for credit and attribution — HERE. And the most relevant part is that they tell their own staff to indicate clearly which parts of the article or news or facts or data have been sourced from another newspaper, agency, etc. particularly since if the fact proves to be wrong, they aren’t responsible and made it clear it was not their fact…

Here is a full quote of the relevant paragraph from the AP website:

“The attribution doesn’t always have to be at the start of a story or script; it can sometimes be two or three graphs down. But we do need to say where the information came from. If some information comes from another organization and some is ours, we should credit ourselves for what’s ours and the other organization for what’s theirs. (If the material from the other source turns out to be wrong, we’ll cite them in any corrective we do later.)”

Nov 15, 2010 | 3:13 pm

bluegirl
says:

On the premise that PDI has a agreement with the IHT, given the time element & urgency, I would think it more practical & honorable to just reprint the press release verbatim and give IHT the full credit.

Putting ones name underneath the title gives the impression the article is the author’s. But when one copies and changes/adds *some* parts, then it’s not even the author’s by majority.

Forgive me if I’m hard, but it comes across as a form of deceit & misrepresentation. And that, to me, is where it becomes embarrassing & distasteful.

I have no background in journalism so I’m making this comment as a layman / reader.

Here’s more, in the Columbia Journalism Review, they write this article on plagiarism. The interesting tip is this one, and I quote:

“Put quotes in â€œquotes.â€ Whether taking notes by hand, transcribing an interview, or copying text from another source, always use quotation marks. This helps prevent you from forgetting to add them later.”

Nov 15, 2010 | 3:20 pm

Onlysecond
says:

I don’t get why the writer had to paraphrase the article. He already cited the sources, so why not just print the entire thing or acknowledge lifted paragraphs with quotes at the very least? Why go through the trouble of editing the thing to make it slightly different from the original? The changes seem to be cosmetic and hardly do anything to improve the original. And the mere fact that it is his name written under the headline means he is claiming credit for the article. Never mind the footnote at the end that seems like a careless afterthought to cover his ass rather than an actual attempt to credit the source.

For those who are curious, this is a good read, The Associated press Statement of News Values and Principles, here. Great views on plagiarism, bylines, quotations, press release materials, etc.

Onlysecond, precisely my thoughts. There appears to be no malice here. Just incredibly sloppy journalism and editorial lapses.

Nov 15, 2010 | 4:03 pm

Dee
says:

OMG!!! Inquirer cannot even write their own headline story???!!! For a knowingly much-read about topic????!! This is so outrageous, somebody please email this link to the owners of Inquirer!!
Even if they have agreements, Inquirer should be able to write their own! Especially that it’s a “Filipino story” so to speak, Duh!

Here’s what happens to journalists that work for the NYTimes that are found out to be plagiarizing, using quotes or information from other newspapers and Reuters without attribution… But in this case, absolutely NO attribution and nearly direct quotes or obvious paraphrasing. Zapped…

Nov 15, 2010 | 4:26 pm

Dee
says:

Oops sorry, just saw at the end that you mentioned you will forward this post to Inquirer.. will wait for their answer :) Inquirer tends to have tabloid-like headlines too – like their Black Man In White House headline when Obama won — just pure bad bad taste in my opinion.

I am fascinated by the discussion, and have looked up articles in the International Herald Tribune that similarly uses newswires… Here is one example in the Nov. 15, 2010 issue under world news in the column “Briefly Asia” :

And I quote the IHT:

“Mount Merapi, Indonesia
9 more bodies are discovered as rescuers dig through ash

Rescuers digging through a meter of ash discovered nine more bodies on the slopes of Mount Merapi, whose explosive eruption a week ago buried whole villages. As confirmation of more deaths trickled in Sunday, the toll from a seres of blasts at the Indonesian volcano rose to at least 250.

The mountain, which has let off blasts of hot gas over the past two days………
……

The National Disaster Management Agency’s official toll stood at 242 on Sunday, but the spokesman said the figure was expected to climb. (AP)”

Essentially, The IHT simply published the press or newswire release of the AP, with some edits to SHORTEN the piece, and gave full attribution to the AP, with no byline. That seems reasonable to me. And doesn’t require quotations as the whole piece is attributed to the AP.

Nov 15, 2010 | 5:02 pm

present tense
says:

I’m afraid this is one thing we all as filipinos should take the blame for. I am not surprised – kaya nga Philippine Daily Inquirer ang tawag sa dyaryo – the word philippines is a clear giveaway – kun makakalusot eh dapat shortcut na lang. What is concerning is that the culture will inevitably influence the more diligent among us. But you realize that many students – to save on costs – xerox copywritten books, essays, and articles – despite this being a criminal offense punishable by law…its the nature of who we are, where we are, and why we are that way as a people. And to think we are descendants of Jose Rizal, Lapu-lapu, Mabini – makes it even more appalling. But hey, hasn’t China’s intellectual property theft insomway contributed although insignificantly to its GNP ? Ethically, I read somewhere that when right or wrong no longer apply, its the greater good that must prevail – but then again, I prefer to read. Plagiarism is for journalists or supreme court justices.

Nov 15, 2010 | 5:15 pm

Dr Nick
says:

Completely agree with Dee – surely by just watching the match on TV would they have been able to write up a match report. Possible post-match quotes could have been taken from newswires (and properly attributed).

Nov 15, 2010 | 5:24 pm

Ken Lovell
says:

I don’t believe there’s anything peculiarly Filipino about this. Not many newspapers employ reporters any more; they rely extensively on the wire services. The sloppy professionalism here, as suggested @ 10, is in paraphrasing the original sources to give the impression that this is an original story based on a reporter’s first-hand observations.

Nov 15, 2010 | 6:18 pm

present tense
says:

Mr. Lovell, you are being too kind. Granting that these incidents happen in media globally, I would argue that compliance standards in Manila appear more lax or condoning and commonplace visavis global media standards of compliance elsewhere. The absence of legal cases regarding this may mean they are simply not litigated or settled out of court – and hence, a lower incidence. And that is just media were are talking about. If we go by stable capital markets of choice, PH ranks 50th out of 57…but I digress. I hope to God that I am wrong because that would mean we are doing something correctly – and I am speaking as a filipino who has lived here for the past several decades

MM: Just to explain, as I am a print journalist as well, most newspapers in the PH pay for wire services such as AP, AFP, Bloomberg, NYT, etc. w/c are then published in said papers. When there is a news story by the paper’s own reporter but there are better insights from the wires, then it is common practice by editors to “wrap” the wire stories with the reporter’s story. And yes, the use of the wire stories is acknowledged by way of a tagline. It is not considered plagiarism bec. that wire sources are acknowledged and the papers have paid for the right to use these stories. This is a long-standing practice not only in the PH, but even in the U.S. and other countries. If the wire companies felt it was plagiarism, you can be sure that they would be the first ones to complain and file charges against the erring newspapers. Btw, IHT produces very little of its own content and actually uses many stories from the major int’l wire services as well. Thank you.

I should mention that elsewhere in today’s PDI, there are several Pacquiao related articles, and they are either compeletely attributed to Reuters and published verbatim, along with photos also attributed to Reuters. Or attributed specifically the author Greg Bishop of the New York Times. Several photos in a special section are credited to The Associated Press (AP), Agence France Presse (AFP) and ti Keats London (PDI-US Correspondent). There are also 4 articles under the byline of the same reporter as the one credited with the front page article. But in these 4 articles, there is NO reference to using other newswires such as AFP, AP or Reuters, so I assume the articles are completely based on his reporting/writing.

akosistella, okay, I am beginning to understand that reasoning, as earlier outlined by #6 Reporter, and others. But I still find it odd that the imbedded paragraphs taken from newswires were then just slightly altered (with no apparent improvement to the original) rather than just being left as is. Any ambiguity or gray area would have been easily avoided had there been no byline and simply “from news reports” were used, no? At least that seems to be the way large newspapers elsewhere in the world seem to deal with this kind of issue. The use of byline, to me, suggests original material, attributable to the reporter.

The IHT is owned by the New York Times, so it is not surprising that it gets a lot of its material from the NYTimes and the newswires. It also used to be owned jointly by the Washington Post, but that changed years ago.

akosistella, I was intrigued by your explanation, so I did more googling, and found this:

In today’s PDI, they credit a whole article to Reuters entitled “Roach tells Floyd Jr: Put up or shut up” and after some searching, I found the EXACT same article on the website of The Telegraph in the U.K. with the byline “By Telegraph Staff and agencies.” – Gosh that’s appalling. Number 1 the article seems completely sourced from Reuters (Written by Mark Lamport-Stokes), so just placing “Agencies” certainly seems worse than saying in a tagline “with reports from Reuters, AFP, etc.”. And Number 2, what did the Telegraph Staff do to justify their mention in the tagline? Yowks. Didn’t realize newspapers were going to be “so loose” or casual about attribution. Most of the exact same Reuters article also appeared in The Guardian in the U.K., but at least this time with attribution to Reuters, with the last few paragraphs edited out.

Nov 15, 2010 | 7:45 pm

britelite
says:

MM–I was wondering what is your take about the SC plagiarism issue–you are not here pala.

Nov 15, 2010 | 7:59 pm

marilen
says:

Despite arrangements with, attributions to wire press, etc, it just looks to me the writer wanted to pass on along the impression he wrote it himself. It still looks like a half can of plagiarism worms to me.

I don’t know how they do it in the other papers, but when I used to wrap up our stories w/ wire feeds, I didn’t re-write the wire portions, since the copy of wire reporters gets edited 2-3x by other editors in their respective home bureaus. Kung baga, these are tightly edited and polished already. In other papers siguro, the editors want to re-write the wire stories for clarity bec. of the target audience, or wala lang, trip nya e. It’s really the editors’ call. As for the Telegraph, it could just be an oversight, MM. When you’re working on a tight deadline, there are bound to be a lot of mistakes. I don’t excuse my profession. But it’s really imperfect system. This is most prevalent in the case of some Filipino papers which don’t even have enough copy editors or proofreaders to tightly edit/proof copy before this is finally laid out and published. Yun lang. Hope everyone calms down. I don’t think there was any intention on the part of PDI to deceive readers ;p

marilen et al, or an EDITOR was responsible for the mish-mash. The writer had 3 or 4 full articles under his byline in a special section of the paper today, so it seems unusual that only on the front page article would there be this issue…

akosistella, thanks for that, I too agree that there appears to be no malice involved, just sloppy journalism. But an eye-opeing “education” in how newspapers operate I have had today…

Nov 15, 2010 | 8:44 pm

julia
says:

marketman, i’m glad you’re starting to see that it’s not really a PDI (a paper that could really use some serious self-examination in many respects) or even, as some have rashly pointed out, a “filipino” thing, after all. like akosistella, i’ve worked in a newspaper and i understand where she’s coming from. maybe next time we can all dial down the self-righteousness (one of the reasons PDI is not my favorite Manila paper) until we get all the facts. peace

julia, it may be “common practice” and known to journalists, but it doesn’t make it right. Don’t you find it odd that the rules of plagiarism seem a little looser in this case simply because a paper is deemed to have “purchased” the material and ergo is free to do with it as it pleases? And besides, I have yet to identify an example, where a front-page article in a major western paper is given a by-line, then a tag-line with several newswires, the content of which has been used verbatim and/or altered. I am not saying it doesn’t exist, it probably does, but it does not excuse anything raised above. But I am glad the discussion is occurring. And if you read the links above, I have identified two specific instances where the Inquirer was involved in the use of a photograph of mine (and another of another food blogger) without permission or attribution. And an instance where one of their writers was caught red-handed plagiarizing material and presenting it as their own. In both cases they eventually admitted the mistake and published apologies (of a sort).

Nov 15, 2010 | 8:58 pm

julia
says:

plagiarism is plagiarism, whether it’s committed by a supreme court justice, a newspaper or a student doing some last-minute copy-and-paste for a term paper not even his college professor will read. it’s still wrong, wherever it occurs or who commits it. newspaper “wraps,” tho, are way different from a paper just publishing some other person’s intellectual property without permission or attribution — and the latter occurrence does happen a lot, unfortunately. thus, the PDI “banner” story and the instances of pure and simple plagiarism that you cite in your last post are not the same, for reasons that you ave mentioned (purchase of wire service, etc.), as well. having said all that, i agree that newspapers should be held up to higher standards of writing, research, style, attribution and other areas of craft simply because newspapers have traditionally prided themselves with these attributes. alas, these qualities have also been devalued in the journalism profession, for reasons as diverse as the failure of newspapers to attract (or even keep) the best journalists, the economic hard times that have hit mainstream “old” media and others that require entire books to analyze. frankly, at the end of the day, some in the profession are just happy to make enough noise in cyberspace with what they print or post on their sites. again, peace

Nov 15, 2010 | 9:30 pm

naghihingalo
says:

Agree with you, Marketman. Common sense and basic values make what you showed plagiarism in my book. Regardless of what our Supreme Court says, lack of malice doesn’t make it less so.

Even more stunning to me, though, is this: Why would one of the Philippines’ largest newspapers rely on foreign news wires for an article about one of our national heroes, on a game which brought this entire country to a halt? Surely they could write something about that on their own.

The mind boggles.

Nov 15, 2010 | 9:31 pm

erleen
says:

There are dozens of plagiarism checkers online. Like this link: http://www.duplichecker.com/
Are they too lazy that they cannot even be bothered to check? Tsk. tsk.

Proper attribution is not an issue here. The piece is obviously a “wrap” of the report submitted by luarca and those fed by NYT, AP, AFP. Here’s the way how newspapers do it. Somebody (a sub-editor in most cases) is assigned to piece these together. From where he sits, he sees no difference between a staff-written story and feeds from the wires to which his newspaper subscribes. His job is to make a single story out of the mass of inputs he has on hand. He does not and is not expected to give credit per paragraph or blocks of paragraphs to the writer or the wires. It gets in the way of telling the story. He proceeds on the assumption that he is free to use the materials as he sees fit. The piece that is eventually printed may carry or not carry a byline/tagline, although wire agencies usually require that they be credited even if only a single paragraph is used from their stories. Every paper has its stylebook. One might just stick a dash and “AFP, AP and the NYT News Service” at the end. another might place the generic “By the Wires” at the top.

These are accepted newsroom practices, both here and abroad.

To further illustrate, let’s consider a story about a family of warlords, say, in Mindanao, killing a hundred people in cold blood. there are reports from correspondents on the scene and from beat reporters covering PNP, AFP, Malacanang, DILG, etc. When these are “wrapped,” the final product may carry a byline reading “By Juan dela Cruz” and a tagline “With reports from Pedro, Jaime and Lucas.” Nothing wrong or sloppy journalism here. If one substitutes “NYT” for “Pedro,” “AP” for “Jaime” and “Lucas” for “AFP,” we have an analogous case to the Pacquiao story.

Such practice, I guess, is a baggage from the era when wire feeds were mostly in the form of one paragraphers followed by one paragraphers not remotely related to the first, transmitted via teletypes for use by worldwide subscribers, each with a different printing deadline. Later would come “Add 1,” “Add 2,” “Add 3” and, finally, “Wrap” many hours after the first break. Cut-and-paste was a product of that set-up.

Perhaps the typical newsroom is a dinosaur which has failed to adapt to the digital environment. I don’t know, but I hope this comment would help regulars and casual visitors to this site look more kindly at journalism and journalists.

Nov 15, 2010 | 11:40 pm

Getter Dragon 1
says:

Confirmed that in the hours post fight and then going online to read coverage by mainstream media and internet sites devoted to boxing and sports in general, that the writing isn’t so much original writing at all, but mostly a copy and paste from a single source and then posted with (most of the time) a citation of where it came from.

My opinion isn’t so much about lack of initiative on the writer or reporter, but on which online news or website can get the word out faster or in other words ‘scooping the competition’. Now, I’m not saying that it makes it right, but in terms of readership and revenue, its a matter of quanity versus quality. What makes it wrong is that as end users, is that we are sometimes satisfied with what is front of us and then moving on. This in turn encourages writers, reporters to not use their critical thinking skills to produce original works. In the end, readers (or rather discriminating readers) end up with unoriginal and/or mediocre work rather than intriguing pieces.

iyoy, julia and reporter, is this convention limited only to material provided by newswires that the newspaper buys? Therefore, if the writer uses any other traditional source like an interview, books, magazines, internet sources, government report, etc. s/he would have to cite those sources as normal writers would? And in that latter case, all the “normal” rules of plagiarism for lack of attribution would apply?

In today’s PDI, under the front page story “Pacquiao era in boxing ending” but with tag line “Reports from New York Times, AFP and AP” the article is clearly just a conglomeration of newswires from the three news agencies. But unlike the article yesterday, if you read it closely and look up sources, 80-85% of the article is directly taken from the Greg Bishop article in the New York Times, with few changes (article also appears in full in today’s IHT), just a couple of edits to shorten the content. But no odd changes to vocabulary, order, structure, etc. The third and second to the last paragraphs are taken verbatim from AFP and the last paragraph from the AP.

See in this case, I don’t have the same strong reaction I had to the headline article yesterday with the by-line to a specific writer (who may definitely have written a majority of that piece) and which included obviously altered snippets from the three news agencies. As Iyoy muses, perhaps the newsrooms are indeed a dinosaur of sorts in a digital age. With less and less “real” and “original” or “local” content, it’s not surprising that newspapers around the world are seeing massive declines in their readership…

I also wonder why the paper didn’t just use the NYTimes article in its entireity today, instead of tagging on 3 paragraphs at the end from other sources (and which do not add significantly to the story). Is that to avoid the need to actually give Mr. Bishop of the New York Times the byline, as they did in yesterday’s paper in the special Pacquiao section when they re-published with entire article? Is the Inquirer concerned about showing a front page article about a national hero of sorts but attributing it in its entireity to the original source, a foreign journalist?

Nov 16, 2010 | 7:27 am

present tense
says:

Nov 16, 2010 | 9:59 am

Carol Geron
says:

At the end of this discussion, it is quite sad to see that what is basically wrong has been passed off as “acceptable practice” in view of the demands of time and lack of professionalism to the basic tenets of what is right or wrong. I am not a journalist but one who had aspired to be one in my younger days. It is sad to see how journalism has deteriorated to this level – not only in print media, but also those in other forms of media – one will just look at the TV news programs and the type of questions reporters ask the President and his cabinet – you would wonder whether they have done any research at all. So I don’t regret not being a journalist anymore, considering its state right now. I am sorry to be harsh (and this is my personal opinion), but I really cannot justify sloppiness and unprofessionalism (in the form of plagiarism), just because everybody else is doing it within the said industry (sorry, I cannot bring myself to call it a profession). Sorry to be sounding like this but I am very disappointed with the way the media industry has turned out, considering their very important role in being able to influence public opinion and civil action. I challenge anyone to come up with at least 10 names of journalists/media personalities who exemplify professionalism and the basic tenets of journalism today – sadly, I cannot even come up with 5 names… Such is the sorry state we are in right now for a country as democratic as the Philippines where journalism and media can play an important role in shaping our development…

Nov 16, 2010 | 10:06 am

anna
says:

Kaya pala…I was reading the Inq article after I read the NYTimes article. I was wondering why it seemed familiar when I was SURE that I didn’t read Inq yet (hardly ever read that, usually go to abs-cbnnews for Philippine news). UGH! How disgusting.

BTW – I am unable to get on inq website now but when I first read the article, I looked to see if it was attributed to other agencies (because it sounded familiar). I didn’t see any. So if it’s there now, someone did some editing… just saying :P

This is really irritating because Pacman just worked his butt off and gave us glory, then our own countrymen would destroy whatever glory by ripping off foreign journalists. Hay.

Somebody please teach our journalists and lawmakers how to cite properly. We’re not asking for MLA or APA formats when it comes to journalistic citations but at least do proper crediting. Sheesh!

Nov 16, 2010 | 10:26 am

joyce
says:

Technology has certainly made news more democratic at the expense of original writing. I work in publishing and see how news evolves from one article and rehashed throughout the day in various forms. I’ve learned to always double or triple check facts as web sites tend to just rattle off information without confirming sources. It is also not uncommon to read something in The Atlantic and see a similar article idea fleshed out at the New York Times a few days later. Its a shame that Philippine Star had to rely in wire news for such a huge anticipated event such as the Pacquiao fight when it could have written an original piece that could have been in turn quoted by all the news wires and not the other way around.

Nov 16, 2010 | 11:30 am

iyoy
says:

from mm: “iyoy, julia and reporter, is this convention limited only to material provided by newswires that the newspaper buys?…”

absolutely, yes.

to carol,

what i have been trying to say is that doing “wraps” has been the practice in putting together feeds from more than one news service. it’s not that it is now being passed off as an “acceptable practice.” the problem, the way i see it, is how to update what is probably an anachronistic technique at a time when the reader can directly access the nyt or the news services and read their original reports. not so long ago, only the newspapers had access to the wires through dedicated teletypes

Iyoy – What I meant by “acceptable practice” is putting a by-line (author) to a material which has been drawn largely from various sources such as news wires, giving an impression that the article has been written as an original material by an individual author. I am not against newspapers sourcing their articles from news wires and “wrapping” these for their news – indeed that is an acceptable practice that is legitimate and no plagiarism is committed there. In doing written work (such as in scientific publications), it is expected that the author provides an original written material with new ideas and findings, supplemented by available related material of other sources which are properly accredited. In fact, original wirtten materials form part of an individual author’s body of work. What I am trying to say is that, how can it be considered “acceptable practice” in the industry that articles ( a headline story at that) are passed off as original work (since there is a by-line of the reporter’s name) when the full article has been lifted (or what you say “wrapped”) mostly from various sources (even if acknowledged)? Can the said individual reporter honestly claim such a headline story as forming part of his body of work that he himself has written since it was published under his name? I am just saying that we stick to what is factual. It is quite evident and factual to say that the Inquirer headline story yesterday should not have been attributed to a reporter who did not write majority of the said piece, even if he acknnowledged the news wires as part of his sources. There is nothing wrong for the Inquirer to publish a headline story which they have sourced (wrapped) from the various news wires (they have done it several times, with attribution), what is deceiving is passing off as original material a headline story supposedly written by a reporter who did not even bother to write an original article. Now, this practice may be acceptable within the industry, but certainly, I don’t think it is acceptable when we talk about the real meaning of plagiarism. We should go back to what our mothers taught us – a wrong deed is not made right by the fact that a lot of people are doing it and are making do with such a practice.

Carol, if I could add, I think the article in question yesterday may have been more than 50% written by the writer/editor, as I only identified about 25 to maybe 30% that was taken from newswires, but I do agree with much of what you say… hence my problem with the article to begin with… If it didn’t have a by line, and had a tag line that read “Author contributed to this article together with reports from NYT, AP and AFP” then I wouldn’t have brought this issue up. But I guess what Iyoy and others are suggesting is that a byline does not necessarily imply or guarantee that the author wrote everything himself…

Nov 16, 2010 | 4:12 pm

iyoy
says:

carol, i understand your point. our difference lies in the fact that, for me, news services such as AP, AFP, Reuters (and in this case, NYT) are not “sources” in the way the word is commonly understood. when their names are appended as a tagline, they are considered “joint authors” of the bylined article.

from the comments, i get the sense that had inquirer bylined the report “By Roy Luarca, NYT News Service, AP and AFP” or “By Roy Luarca with reports…” there would have been no problem. That the editors chose to give luarca a byline and relegated the wires to the tagline is the controversial point. it’s a judgment call where i guess the editors believed luarca deserved a byline (making him the “primary author”) because his contribution, which provided the essential “Filipino angle” to the report, served as the skeleton upon which the wire reports hung.

and lest i may be misunderstood by mm’s readers, no, my comments are not meant to defend inquirer or its editors. they (and my friendship with most of them go a long, long way back) can very well take care of themselves. i’m trying to sort out my own feelings/thoughts after reading mm’s post and the reactions, highly disturbing for one like me who has spent whole adult life working for dailies (35 years, all but two or three of which as a newsdesk “slave”).

Nov 16, 2010 | 5:05 pm

Lava Bien
says:

This has been going on in the Philippines even before the internet days, from copied movie plots and stories to news reporting, music, because the ones doing it can get away with it and make themselves look good without all the work. This is an insult to the regular masang pinoy as the culprits think we would never know the difference.

Thank God to the internet, the playing field is a lot better. Anybody can be better informed now.

A very interesting topic here. Iyoy, appreciate all your comments– I definitely learned a lot today.

Nov 17, 2010 | 1:32 am

present tense
says:

MM, when you first started to blog, I had serious issues about intellectual property granting that you wanted to find out how this or that recipe would work – as you probably know the food business is among the most tightly guarded and proprietary with secrets kept close to the chest. This is one of the most labor intensive of businesses whose secrets are passed off from one generation to another. So when someone started to blog about the process, it disturbed me no end. Yet, what could I do ? In the end I had to come to terms with internet freedom. It did help that you had a good heart and good intentions. So I set aside my prejudices and simply accepted you for what you have done – made many people happy

I do believe ( and this is just me ) that you need to also need to come to terms with the fact that the IHT is more expensive than the PDI but the PDI is able to deliver “world class” news to the locals through the wires. The business of media is to inform, educate, entertain and they have largely complied. The fact that we are getting quality news is better than no news at all . Would you prefer news from local editors whose grammar, articulateness, and choice of words – are sorely lacking in many cases as I and many others have often observed. Cheers ! And have a nice day ! And yes, you do operate a damn good blog…

present tense, PDI buys/pays for the newswires, so is FREE to print the articles verbatim. They could have printed exactly the same article as the IHT without any issue at all; instead, though, for whatever reason, they opted to cobble together an article under a byline of a filipino writer, but a significant portion of the content was printed verbatim from the three newswires… so this isn’t an issue of rich vs. less fortunate at all. The newswires were designed precisely to share/disseminate news quickly, and have thousands of member newspapers around the world to receive the wires. And if I am not mistaken AP itself is a non-profit organization, though others like AFP/Reuters are for profit.

As for recipes, ones trying to “replicate” or “reproduce” a food product is fair game, in my opinion. You have not stolen their trade secrets, nor gazed at their closely guarded recipes, but you do use your own cooking/taste to try and make something similar. So it is interesting to note, for example, that you cannot COPYRIGHT or register a single “recipe”. You can copyright your narrative/instructions as you have written them, or an entire collection in a book, but not the ingredients or measures… If I am to understand recipe copyright law correctly, in theory, someone could copy the ingredients list from a published recipe exactly the same way, but simply write the instructions in their own words and they would be technically okay. Of course, morally/ethically, or simple guilt might prevent you from doing that…

When I publish the recipe of someone else, Manang Lima, the budbud kabog lady for example, I get their EXPRESS PERMISSION to do so. In other cases, where the subjects are thrilled to be featured, but do not want the exact recipe given out, I DON’T. That was the case with lumpia wrappers and lumpia filling in Bacolod. In some instances they have secrets they have shared with me, and only for me, that I do not pass on to the readership.

Personally, I prefer when folks share their recipes as it benefits the population as a whole to be eating and cooking good food. I have never understood the desire to keep them secret unless they feel they will lose out on a business, etc. Dying with ones favorite home cooked recipes is a shame in many ways. Oh, and if I might add, I am not actually interested in the most “commercially significant” recipes such as Angrywasp’s spicy chicken or WaffleHouses’ spaghetti as these are likely laced with MSG and other preservatives that make them uninteresting for a home cook like myself. I would prefer to endeavor to save artisanal and home recipes that are rapidly disappearing as more and more folks choose to eat out at Angrywasp’s and Wafflehouses across the archipelago. :)

Nov 17, 2010 | 9:08 am

present tense
says:

Ok cge nga…

Nov 17, 2010 | 9:43 am

present tense
says:

I wish I were Antonio Margarito. He’s the only guy who ever managed to punch a congressman in the face…

iyoy, julia and reporter, is this convention limited only to material provided by newswires that the newspaper buys? Therefore, if the writer uses any other traditional source like an interview, books, magazines, internet sources, government report, etc. s/he would have to cite those sources as normal writers would? And in that latter case, all the â€œnormalâ€ rules of plagiarism for lack of attribution would apply?

=====
You are correct, the “acceptable practice” is only limited to newswires subscribed to by the newspaper.

Reporter, thanks for that. joel, ay naku, that case makes my blood boil, so much so I can’t write about it. Laughing stock is right. Why anyone would invest money in this country given the questionable legal infrastructure is really beyond me. :(

Nov 17, 2010 | 1:55 pm

joel
says:

it really behooves me how we can accept such nonsense. my blood’s been boiling as well, marketman. keep your cool, because something has to give, sometime… common sense and taste have taken a backseat to i don’t know what anymore. sigh

Nov 17, 2010 | 3:35 pm

Quillene
says:

I am surprised, MM that PDI still finds a way into your reading list considering their questionable track record of citing sources, and ethics… I have decided to get my news elsewhere…

I-inglesen ko na…MM, why you returned back to PI given your successful international career is beyond me. And I don’t mean to say that in sneer or in a condescending way. In fact, I salute and admire you for doing so. It just makes me wonder, how do you maintain your sanity, and how do you find peace, when in any given day, you’ll find yourself dealing with such inept, corrupt and vile characters, and a system that is just as bad.

I don’t mean to generalize or paint everything else in the Philippines with such broad strokes of negativism but we do have our fair amount of some really undesirable people, traits, and to some extent I would say flawed culture. For you, what is it (besides food) that makes life in the Philippines worthwhile, in spite of all of these?

Nov 18, 2010 | 8:42 am

Blaise
says:

Whoever lifted the article from NYT is not a journalist but a bastard who pretends to be a journalist.

Nov 18, 2010 | 11:50 am

mary
says:

Blanket citing is definitely tantamount to plagiarism. If the writer could not produce a worthy article in a timely manner then the paper should have just printed the entire article from the IHT and given credit to the original writer. I am sure the writer from the Inquirer was hoping nobody would notice. Kung makakalusot lang daw. Now that is laziness!!!!!!

RV Escat, OMG, OMG, this is just too much. I have to say, whoever did the Filipino logo did add lots of stuff, but the essence of the Polish one is highly visible. Same font, bright colors, waves. Yikes. Chopping block. Chopping block. Do we not have enough individual pride to understand that this kind of behavior is simple wrong? :( Thanks for that link RV, and for spanky noticing it and posting it.

Nov 18, 2010 | 3:27 pm

present tense
says:

I think that this where the concept of outsourcing plays itself. This isnt laziness per se but practical business sense to cut on costs. Plagiarism is theft plain and simple different from outsourced material. And that is why the article found itself in the Front Page of the PDI. These are matters best left for congress to discern, decide, and legislate – but I am willing to bet my left arm they would plagiarize US jurisprudence

Nov 18, 2010 | 5:25 pm

corianderie
says:

This issue bothers me because it boils down to a question of how much INTEGRITY and HONOR one has. To proudly claim being the leading newspaper and passing off someone’s work as your own? Oh my.

Nov 18, 2010 | 7:28 pm

kongwi
says:

the new case of plagiarism is the new DOT Pilipinas Kay Ganda campaign logo and the tourism logo of Poland…Polska…

kongwi, how ironic is that, the Inquirer posts both logos on its front page today to draw attention to the “similarities” or “differences” and yet the other day doesn’t have a tinge of concern about the Pacquiao article… hay naku, what do they say, “the pot calling the kettle black?” or is it the other way around?

a local newpaper here in Cebu also took a picture from my friend without permission.. :(

Nov 19, 2010 | 5:10 pm

present tense
says:

Something else rather interesting, have you ever heard of Intellectual Ventures.com ? Well, these are among the best science and tech guys in their fields ( agriculture, nanophysics, medical engineering, biochemistry, software, etc ). Turns out these guys have busy schedules but meet once a week just to brainstorm ideas tossed around. A lawyer is present to record. Their core business is simply to patent ideas that are later sold off. Sometimes they collaborate with inventors. But their prime business is selling off concepts. But the company calls their staff Inventors regardless of whether or not he is Microsoft’s Chief Technology Officer.And I am pretty sure the wording of their contract stipulates protecting Inventor’s rights – not just the ideas patented. Example are bullets with tungsten cores. Or lasers that zap mosquitos simply by zeroing in on size and wingspeed. They are now doing research on metastatic breast cancer.But all they really do is brainstorm with a lawyer present to patent their ideas. They sometimes finance inventions and go legal to protect inventors’ rights.

My point being in plagiarism – it’s not just the material that is accorded lawful treatment – but the author as well, should be imbued with certain rights. So there is protection on both ends – and not just the material. I dont know if that makes any sense though…

Well, it’s been nearly two weeks since I posted this and sent an email to the readers advocate of the Inquirer. Not a peep or even acknowledgment of the email. And ironically, the Inquirer took the lead in “exposing” the plagiarism of the Philippine Tourism’s new logo “Pilipinas Kay Ganda” which was copied from the Polish Tourism Authority (though with several changes that don’t make it plagiarized, according the man in charge (absurd)… But don’t worry, we will be watching the Inquirer for any possible future situations where they or their writers are caught plagiarizing material or photos…

It is sad to see a newspaper that started out with a sterling performance of providing us with the truth during the critical days leading to People Power go down to this level. “Balanced News, Fearless Views” no more.